Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
Baxter on the Provision of Affluent Estates
Baxter on the Provision of Affluent Estates
Aug 5, 2026 10:10 PM

Regarding John Armstrong’s insightful post yesterday, I want to pass along some related wisdom on the subject from Richard Baxter from his 1682 treatise, How to do Good to Many. Writing on the text of Galatians 6:10, he writes about the problem and responsibility of passing along wealthy estates to heirs:

III. The Text plainly intimateth that it is a great Crime in them, that instead of doing good while they have opportunity, think it enough to leave it by Will to their Executors to do it. When they have lived to the flesh, and cannot take it with them, they think it enough to leave others to do that good, which they had not a heart to do themselves: But a treasure must be laid up in heaven before-hand, and not be left to be sent after, Matth. 6. 20, 21. And he that will make friends of the Mammon of Unrighteousness, must now be rich towards God, Luk. 12. 21. It’s no victory over the World, to leave it when you cannot keep it: Nor will any Legacy purchase Heaven for an unholy worldly soul.

IV. Yet they that will do good neither Living nor Dying are worst of all. Surely the last Acts of our Lives, if possible, should be the best; And as we must live in health, so also in sickness, and to the last in doing all the good we can; and therefore it must needs be a great sin, to leave our Estates to those that are like to do hurt with them, or to do no good, so far as we are the free disposers of them.

The Case, I confess is not without considerable difficulties, how much a man is bound to leave to his Children, or his neerest Kindred, when some of them are disposed to live unprofitably, and some to live ungodly and hurtfully. Some think men are bound to leave them nothing, some think they ought to leave them almost all: And some think that they should leave them only so much as may find them tolerable food and raiment. I shall do my best to decide the case in several propositions.

The Case is not with us as it was with the Israelites, who might not alienate their Inheritances from the Tribes. Yet even they had power to prefer a younger Son, that was more deserving, before an Elder that was worse.Where either Law or Contract have disabled a man to alienate his Estate from an ungodly Heir, there is no room for a doubt what he must do.Nature teacheth all men to prefer a Child that is pious and hopeful, in his provisions and Legacies before a stranger that is somewhat better, and not to alienate his Estate for want of a higher degree of goodness.When there is a just cause to disinherit an elder Son, a younger is to be preferred before a Stranger; or a Kinsman if there be no tolerable Son.And a Son that ought not to be trusted with Riches or a great Estate, yet ought to have Food and Raiment; (unless e to that State of obstinate rebellion in sin, for which God’s manded the Israelites to bring forth their Sons to be put to death: In such Cases the house of Correction is fittest for them.) Yet should he have such food as may humble him, and not to gratifie his lust.If a man that hath the full power to dispose of his Estate, real or personal, have Sons and Kindred that according to the Judgment of sound reason, are like, if they had his Estate, to do mischief with it, or maintain them in a wicked life, or in a meer unprofitable Life of idleness, living only to themselves and fleshly ease and pleasure, That man ought to give his Estate from such to some that are liker to do good with it, and to use it for God, and the publick benefit.

This is much contrary to mon course of most, that think no Estate too great for their Heirs, nor any Portion too great for their Daughters, be they what they will, or what use soever they are like to make of it: But these following reasons prove it to be true.

I. Every man hath his Estate from God, and for God, and is bound as his Steward accordingly to use it. This is past doubt: And how doth that man use it for God, who leaveth it to one that is liker to use it for the Devil in a fleshly unprofitable Life? What account can such a Steward give? Did God give it you to maintain idleness and sin?

Obj. O but it is a Son whom I am bound to provide for. Ans. Are you more bound to your Son than to your Self? God doth not allow you to spend it on your self, to maintain Idleness and Vice, Rom. 13. 13, 14. Make no provision for the flesh to satisfie the lust (or will) thereof. And may you leave it for such a use as is forbidden both your Son and You? It is God that is the owner of it, and it is to him that you must both use and leave it: Whether you Eat or Drink or whatever you do, do all to the Glory of God. And will you leave it to be the fuel of lust, and sin?

Obj. I leave it not for sin: but if he misuse it, I cannot help it. Ans. Would that excuse you if you put a Sword into a mad man’s hand, to say, I cannot help it if he use it ill? You might have helpt it: It’s supposed that you fore-knew how he was like to use it.

Obj. But he may prove better hereafter, as some do. Ans. It is not bare possibilities, that must guide a wise man’s Actions when probability is against them. Would mit your Children to the care of a Mad man or a Knave, because he may e to his Wits, or e honest? Have you not long tried him, and have you not endeavour’d to cure him of his Idleness, wickedness or lust? If it be not done, what ground have you to presume it will be done when you are dead? You may have so much hope as not utterly to despair of him: But that will not allow you to trust him with that which God made you Steward of for his use and service.

But if such hopes may be gratified, give your estate in trust to some Conscionable friend, with secret order to give it your Son or Kinsman, if he e hereafter fit to use it, according to the ends for which God giveth it.

Reas. 2. The Obligation in my Text of doing good to all, extendeth to the end of our lives: And therefore to our last Will and Testament. Therefore you must make your Wills so as may do good to all, and not to cherish sin and idleness.

Reas. 3. You are bound to your best to destroy sin and idleness, and therefore not to feed and cherish it.

Reas. 4. Doing good is the very thing which you are Created, Redeemed and Sanctified for; and therefore you must extend your endeavours to the uttermost and to the last, that as much as may be, may be done when you are dead. If Magistrates and Ministers took care for no longer than their own lives, what would e of the State or Church?

Reas. 5. The Common good is better than the plenty of a sinful Child: Yea it is to be preferred before the best Child, and before our selves. And therefore much more before the worst.

Reas. 6. It’s a dreadful thing to be guilty of all the fleshly sins, which your ungodly Sons mit with your estate; when they shall by it maintain the sins of Sodom, Pride, Fulness of Bread, and abundance of Idleness: If not to strengthen their hands for oppression or Persecution. To think that they will spend their days in voluptuousness, because you gave them provision for the flesh.

Reas. 7. It is cruelty to them that are already so bad, to make their temptations to sin much stronger, and their place in Hell the worse, and to make the way to Heaven as hard to them as for a Camel to go through the eye of a needle: To prepare them to want a drop of water in Hell, who were clothed richly and fared sumptuously on Earth. To entice them to say, Soul take thine ease thou hast enough laid up for many years, till they hear: fool this night shall they require thy Soul; to cherish that love of the world, which is enmity to God, by feeding that lust of the flesh and lust of the eyes, and Pride of life, which are not of the Father, but of the world.

Reas. 8. When this preferring unprofitable and ungodly Children before God and the Common good, is mon and Reigning a sin in the world, it is a great fault for Religious Men to encourage them in it, by their example, and to do as they.

Reas. 9. It is a sin to cast away any of God’s gifts. When Christ had fed men by a Miracle, he saith, gather up the fragments that nothing be lost: If you should cast your mony into the Sea, it were a crime: But to leave it to such as you foresee are most likely to use it sinfully, is more than casting it away. If you saw men offer Sacrifice to Bacchus or Venus, you would abhor it. Do not that which is so like it, as to leave bad men fuel for fleshly lust.

Reas. 10. It is the more dreadful, because it is dying in studyed sin without repentance. To put so much sin into one’s Will, shews a full consent and leaveth no room and time to repent of it.

On all these accounts I advise all the Stewards of God, as they love him and the publick good and their own Souls, while they have opportunity, even to the last breath, to do good to all, and to provide more for mon good than for superfluities to any, and than for the maintaining ungodly Children in sin, to the increase of their guilt and misery.

Indeed in the choice of a Calling, employment and condition of life, and place for their Children, doing good should be preferred before their rising in the world: And they that justly endeavour to raise their Families in wealth, honour or power, should do it only; that they might do the more good. But it is Satan’s design to turn all God’s mercies to the cherishing of wickedness, and even the Love of Parents to their Children to the poisoning of their Souls, the strengthening of their snares, and the hinderance of their own and other men’s Salvation. But it’s shame and pity, that they who in Baptism devoted their Children to God, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, renounceing the world the flesh and the Devil, as under the banner of the Cross, should labour all their life, that impenitently at death they may leave all hat they can get to such as in all probability will use it in pride, fulness and idleness, for the flesh, the world and the Devil, against him and his interest from whom they received it, and to whom both they and all they had were once devoted.

When men are loth that their estates should remove from the Name and Family (for which there may be just cause) I take it for the safest way, (as aforesaid) to trust some (as men do their Children with Guardians) by the advise of Lawyers, to secure all from their unworthy heirs, for the next or some other of the name and lineage that proveth worthy.

There are many other good works by which some rich men may be very profitable to the Common-wealth, such as setting all the poor on work, and building Hospitals for the Impotent, &c. But these this City is happily acquainted with already, and tho still there be much wanting, yet there is much done.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
Four caveats about the Official Poverty Measure
The U.S. Census Bureau released the official poverty measure (OPM) yesterday. Although the numbers were encouraging, there are at least four caveats that everyone who reads these statistics should keep in mind. Without making these adjustments, we may have an inaccurate picture of poverty in the U.S. 1. The OPM does not include the effects of government welfare programs. As the Census Bureauexplains, “The official poverty definition uses money e before taxes and does not include capital gains or noncash...
U.S. surges into top 5 economically free nations
For the second year in a row, the United States has increased its ranking in parison of the world’s freest economies. The good news came as the Fraser Institute released its annual “Economic Freedom of the World” report this morning. “The U.S. has ascended back into the top five most economically-free countries in the world,” said Fred McMahon, research chair at the Fraser Institute, which is based in Canada. The United States fell to 16th place in 2015 but rebounded...
Political idolatry: A Lutheran view
Is faith in politics “another Gospel”? A distinguished Lutheran scholar has weighed in on the matter, clearly delineating a Christian’s duty as a citizen from his duty to the Christ and his fellow body of believers. Gene Veith, the noted professor, provost, and editor, weighs in on the topic after taking notice of Acton’s article on President Trump’s recent “King of Israel” controversy. In his blogatPatheos, Veith shares insights gleaned from Lutheranism’s traditional “Two Kingdoms” theology. “The state’s purview is...
Only an EU ‘empire’ can secure liberty: EU leader
Is a European-wide patible with liberty? A prominent EU leader mended transforming the European Union into an “empire” at a UK political party conference this weekend, to sustained applause. “The world order of tomorrow … is a world order based on empires,” said Guy Verhofstadt, a Member of European Parliament (MEP) and the EU’s chief negotiator on Brexit. He is also leader of the EU’s Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe faction. ments came at the party conference of...
Status and function: Drucker on the keys to a functioning society
This is the fifth in a series of essays on Peter Drucker’s early works. Peter Drucker published The Future of Industrial Man in the midst of World War II (1942). He was conscious of the need to defeat authoritarian governments beyond the battlefield. Free societies would have to prove themselves superior or the problems of fascism munism would continue to recur. In the book, he offered a formulation that he would go on to repeat in many other books and...
Every politician is Andrew Yang
Richard Nixon supposedly once said, “We’re all Keynesians now,” referring to the new accepted regime of monetary policy. Today, we have far bigger problems than our Keynesian Federal Reserve. Any present-day politician could just as well say, “We’re all Andrew Yang now.” Andrew Yang, for those who don’t know, is running for the Democratic nomination for president. He’s an eccentric businessman whose signature policy proposal is that he wants to give you cold hard cash. Really. While many, including me,...
The cosmic battle for economics: Toppling ideological idols with Christian wisdom
When I began my freshman year of college, I didn’t care much about economics. Having been raised in a conservative Christian home, I had adopted a generically pro-capitalism shtick, but it wasn’t much to stand on. As I arrived at my left-leaning Christian college, that lack of foundation soon became clear. I found myself swirling amid campus debates about “economic justice,” infused with lofty religious language. Progressive economic policies were championed with social-gospel gusto and the Acts-2 arguments for socialism...
UN climate chief: Stop worrying and have babies
Climate change may well be a problem, but the chief of the United Nations’ agency on climate says it won’t destroy the world – and shouldn’t stop young people from having children. Alarmist rhetoric from “doomsters and extremists” that babies will destroy the planet “resembles religious extremism” and “will only add to [young women’s] burden” by “provoking anxiety,” he said. Petteri Taalas is no “climate-change denier.” He is secretary-general of theWorld Meteorological Organization (WMO), the UN’s special agency on weather...
Fact check: 5 facts about the third Democratic debate of 2019
The Democratic Party held its third presidential debate on Thursday night. The 10 hopefuls made at least five proposals that were based on erroneous premises or that would harm the country. 1. Wealth inequality is destroying the world. Senator Bernie Sanders said he felt it was “unfair” pare his version of democratic socialism with the version practiced in Venezuela. But he distinguished himself from most of the field by promising bat wealth inequality: To me, democratic socialism means we deal...
Charles Dickens, poverty, and emotional arguments
Why is it that the Industrial Revolution of the 19th century is so often our go-to mental paradigm for poverty? CapX’s John Ashmore, for instance, recently wrote of those who “feel an argument about poverty is plete without claiming we’ve somehow gone back to the 19th century.” Were there no poor people before that? (There were, obviously.) There are a number of possible answers – an increase in the concentration of poverty with growing urbanization and industrialization, which made poverty...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2026 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved